Col. Hunt has it all wrong when comparing black members of the military with homosexuals. The closeness of quarters (showers, sleeping, etc.) are undeniably demanding. Individuals can not avoid being looked at as possible sexual prey while in combat and/or in these tight living circumstances. You would not allow males and females to share showers and/or bunk rooms, would you? I am amazed that another wise seasoned military person can be so adamant in an era of common sense thinking. And Col. Hunt compares blacks with homosexuals? I think HE needs a lesson in true civil rights. — Otto S. (Los Altos, CA)

Col. Hunt: Otto, when you are in combat, sex is the last thing on your mind. Now, for the black and homosexual issue: my point, then and now, is that the same mindset that said blacks could not serve in combat in World War II with whites was, and is, as insipid as saying that homosexuals cannot serve openly in this war on terror. For me, it's not a lifestyle issue, it’s a survival issue.

As a retired Master Chief (USN) with 28 and change years, and also 14 years in civil service with different government agencies (DOD, Air Force, Army), I can and do agree with most of your assessments. The ones I do not agree with, I believe, are looked at from a different perspective.

Under whose watch was the ELINT funding cut for surveillances of bin Laden and crew? —Turk USN (Retired)

Col. Hunt: It was at the beginning of the current Bush administration. After 9/11, the funding went back — unfortunately we still have not gotten bin Laden.

I have one question that you may not answer, but I'll try anyway. Do we have independent operators out there in the boonies looking for terrorists? It seems to me that with the CIA mess-up, that they may not, or do not, have the capabilities to do any hunts for terrorists. I think that our capabilities of counterterrorism in the trenches are not a reality. I love to read books that describe fictitious counterterrorism heroes, and I fear that there are not any in the real world. I'd volunteer if I spoke Farsi or Arabic. — Mike

Col. Hunt: Mike, yes, we have independent contractors working for our intelligence agencies. They do a great job.

Can we ever achieve the level of commitment of our World War II generation given today's political atmosphere? Furthermore, can today's Americans rise to such an occasion given the majority's self-serving attitude? And, if the attacks of 9/11 did not sufficiently motivate our leaders, and our people, what will? — William, 1SG, U.S. Army (Retired)

Col. Hunt: Our leaders have not asked us to sacrifice, so we haven't done so. My dad’s generation had to; we don't yet. I am afraid we will have to get hit again to finally get all of our attention.

With respect, the fundamental questions in the Tillman debacle are: 1. Who knew he was killed by friendly fire, and when? 2. Who directed creation of the fictional version of events, and who was aware of this fraud being perpetrated on the Tillman family and the American public? — Joe, LTC, US Army, Retired

Col. Hunt: Joe, thanks for your service. The entire Ranger regimental chain of command knew within one hour that Ranger Tillman was killed. The entire chain knew it was friendly fire within six hours. The Ranger Regiment reports to the Joint Special Operations Command and from there, depending on the mission, up to the Secretary of Defense Office. I promise you this much: within the five weeks before the funeral everyone knew that Pat died from friendly fire. You know what they told the parents once the Army was caught red-handed? This lie: “We had some bureaucratic problems.”

I served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam era, repairing Polaris submarines in Scotland. I was severely injured while on active duty and spent a year recuperating with a bunch of shot-up Marines at the Naval Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas. But, that is not the subject of my note, sir. I am appalled at the use of the term "friendly fire." Somehow it seems as if the term is designed to make it seem less injurious than "enemy fire." I submit, however, that combat injuries are equally severe and damaging in every way, no matter which direction the ordinance came from! Thus, the term "friendly fire" is an oxymoron at best, and perhaps is actually more of an insult! I would like to see the term retired and replaced with a more accurate one, perhaps "combat injuries." "Enemy fire" is certainly a valid term, but isn't there a better term than "friendly fire"? Colonel, I submit that there is no such thing as "friendly" fire. — B.C.

Col. Hunt: Thanks for you service, and you are right; no fire that kills is "friendly." Your indignation is right on — the terms "combat death" or "injuries" work better.

Isn't what the Iranians did with the British soldiers illegal under the Geneva Convention rules? Why aren't any liberal groups pointing this out? Do the rules apply only to the U.S. and U.K.? —Anonymous

Col. Hunt: Yes, it was illegal to take them, and I think it is an act of war. And yes, the rules apply to all who sign the Geneva Convention.

Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don’t Get It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism, special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an expert at many major terrorist trials, and lectured at the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency. You can read his complete biohere.